BS: Child neglect and the law

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:33 AM

I'll copy again what I put in at the beginning of this thread.

"English law does not specify an age when a child can be left unsupervised. However, parents may be prosecuted for neglect if they leave a child alone "in a manner which is likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health" (Children and Young Persons Act, 1933).

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) advises that no child should be left alone under the age of twelve, or overnight under the age of sixteen. Even a short stretch without a parent or another adult around can be distressing and lonely for a young child. Most eight to thirteen year olds, even if they feel happy about being left, may not be ready to cope in an emergency."

The advice goes on to state that you should "Never leave a baby or toddler alone, even for a few minutes. There are many dangers in a house for an unsupervised child. Leaving a child who is asleep is not a good idea, either - he may wake up and try to come looking for you. Also, being alone in the dark can be terrifying for a small child."

From the Bupa Health Information website.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:13 AM

"That is one of the Social work problems, find people guilty by their lights, and not by the law of this land." quoted at 6.05

The hearing is NOT about detirmining the guilt or innocence of the parents, that will be heard in a seperate court. The Local Authority has an absolute duty in law to consider the welfare of children in instances of neglect or serious allegations of harm to that child or other children in the same household.

I have no idea whether this family has caused harm to Madelaine or not but I can only deduce from their negligent actions, during that tragic holiday, that they are not the "resposible" parents you seem to have decided at the beginning of this thread and which "judgement" you continue to defend.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:54 AM

The Law in Scotland for Family Proceedings is somewhat different from England.

A report in The Scotsman today stated -

"The Local Government Association explained that in England, if an individual is named as a suspect overseas, local social services have a duty to consider whether action has to be taken to ensure other children's welfare.

Asked if it was likely that children in such cases were taken into care or placed on the "in need" or "at risk" register, the LGA said it depended on the circumstances"

I think that SRS has pointed out that these parents belong to a different "caste system" as the unsupported single parent from the council estate and in addition they have an expensive and effcient media machine behind them. It seems likely that these pressures will dictate the "circumstances" quoted above but nevertheless the decision HAS to be made.

I refute the suggestion that "MY" mind is made up on this case - I have quoted only the legislation as it applies to this country (and IMO should also apply to this family) and attempted to explain the dilemma facing the social workers in these circumstances against almost rabid judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:36 AM

"The only person who seems to be argueing here is Giok - and as I haven't heard what decision he would make in these circumstances, although he is quick to criticise those that have to, I shall say "Goodnight" too and be thankful I don't have to write this court report!"

Read my reply at 06:05 EB.

If social workers have the right to intervene based on suspicion alone' which leaves the door open for malicious informants, how come there are so many children already under SS surveillance, that are killed and harmed by their parent or guardian?
I am also glad you don't have to write the report on this one, as your mind is obviously made up already.
Did you hear the news this morning BTW?
Read this and try to realise why I am worried by this kangaroo court we seem to have here.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:30 AM

"It cannot be right to leave children of that age alone.....it just can't..... "

It bloody well isn't right to leave kids at that age alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:46 PM

This was a headline this evening:

Police to Hand Over McCann Case Papers
From Associated Press
September 10, 2007 5:37 PM EDT

ROTHLEY, England - Documents on the investigation into the disappearance of 4-year-old Madeleine McCann won't be given to Portuguese prosecutors by police until Tuesday, and her parents waited at their British home to see if they would be charged.

Portuguese police had been expected to hand-deliver to prosecutors on Monday the results of their investigation into the girl's disappearance May 3 from a hotel in southern Portugal. Police named Kate and Gerry McCann as suspects Friday.

But police spokesman Olegario Sousa said the prosecutor would not receive the case until Tuesday, and he declined to provide further details, citing Portugal's secrecy law covering ongoing investigations.

Portimao District Attorney Jose Cunha de Magalhaes e Meneses will then review the case files, which contain details of forensic evidence and police interviews with the parents.

The McCanns, who returned to Britain on Sunday with their 2-year-old twins, kept a low profile Monday, avoiding reporters camped outside their home.

[snip]

This isn't from a durable link, but I'm sure the same story is appearing all over by tomorrow morning. One suspects that if forensic evidence becomes available, this story will explode out of the water again.

I repeat once again: Susan Smith may have a bearing on this case.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:24 PM

I live in the US and watch very little TV and was totally unaware of this situation. I happened to read in the paper tonight about it and read it aloud to my husband. I am not a child focused human being (can take them or leave them alone!!!!!--although have three kids, now 25, 22 and 18)) but regardless of who did or didn't do anything to the child, HOW CAN IT BE RIGHT TO LEAVE THREE CHILDREN OF THAT AGE ALONE -- IN A STRANGE COUNTRY or in their own homes?????. The poster who indicated his 10 year old enjoyed being home for a couple of hours alone -- 10 years old is not 4 years old!!!! I had a child who - at the age of 3.5 (for various long and complicated reasons) was non verbal. If he was in distress he could not even have verbalized it. Before I saw this thread my husband and I were talking and said -- well, what would we have done -- and we agreed we would have gone out to eat separately and told each other about our pleasurable meals on our return. It cannot be right to leave children of that age alone.....it just can't.....

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 07:48 PM

in case anyone didn't see that deleted post from a guest - they were just expressing their concern that 3 children under the age of 5 were left alone for several late evenings

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 07:42 PM

Since we've been asked only to stick to the absolute facts - the children were all under the age of 4 at the time!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:57 PM

Of course there is evidence, there's always evidence - but we haven't got it, and hence we aren't in a position to work out what it indicates, how strong it is, and what is the right thing to do. Fortunately it's not down to us here.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:54 PM

A lot of times the problems with dysfunctional families are so blatantly obvious that making the case to remove children for their own welfare is a matter of paying close detail to filling out the forms correctly and following the law the way it is stated to deprive parents of the children who they place in danger.

In the caste system of modern societies, doctors are rated very high in the comptetence, intelligence, and income considerations that would normally be discussed when regarding the fitness to be parents.

Poor or less-well-off parents who break the law in some other way (not child endangerment) generally don't lose their children as a result of their act, unless there is no one who can temporarily care for them or if the one being arrested is the custodial parent. If both parents have been charged, the state will make the move to place them if the parents haven't made such arrangements. Is there a mechanism in place in the process of arresting someone to ask "do you have minor children who depend on you exclusively for their welfare?" Here in the U.S. if parents are being investigated for endangering their children, the kids are at least temporarily moved out of the family home. (Unless they are the children of illegal aliens . . . but that's for another thread.)

If the parents are being investigated in one country and officials in their home country learn of it as is the case here, then it seems that the U.K. should take the logical step to at least temporarily intervene to protect the children. If the parents are cleared, fine, but if the parents aren't such good parents, better to err on the side of the child welfare. Sure they're doctors, but don't be blinded by that caste system (that of course exists, despite protests to the contrary).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:45 PM

The only person who seems to be argueing here is Giok - and as I haven't heard what decision he would make in these circumstances, although he is quick to criticise those that have to, I shall say "Goodnight" too and be thankful I don't have to write this court report!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:43 PM

I can't see that there's a shred of evidence to allow an English court to intervene.

Well, I certainly can.


Time for my bed anyway, I leave you to argue amongst yourselves

I don't think the rest of us are arguing, just you.

I'm off to bed too; I'm working tomorrow. Have a good night.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:41 PM

I agree giok there should not be separate laws for different people but I also know of parents who have children removed when they have left them home alone - and theirs didn't get abducted/killed! But they were poor families on council esteates so obviously they were guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:40 PM

Unfortuntely Kevin these decisions HAVE to be made upon incomplete or even debated "evidence" It's often too late when "proof" of harm is established.

There is however irrefutable evidence of neglect in the circumstances in which 3 children under the age of 4 were left alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:39 PM

MGofH

You are right about the distortion of facts and perhaps we should be ignoring all of it at the moment since the Portuguese police have not officially said any of these things, as their laws require.

However, this is a thread on child neglect and the law and a lot of what has been said is not damning allegation but fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:38 PM

Why should there be separate laws for different people, and why are the family courts closed. Sorry but the whole thing stinks of dictatorship, and 1984.
Time for my bed anyway, I leave you to argue amongst yourselves.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:36 PM

Now how about you show us how easy it is to make a decision in this case upon the evidence available which is what a court will have to do.

But we haven't got the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:35 PM

Well I don't think you know much about Family and Child Protection Law Giok - so why not just leave it to the folks who do!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:33 PM

I'm sorry EB but I can't see that there's a shred of evidence to allow an English court to intervene.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:33 PM

Sorry, too many its.

Subject: RE: BSIsn't that normal: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:32 PM

Isn't that normal?

Does that it make it any more right?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:31 PM

An example of how a slight misreading of a news story can turn a fuzzy report into a firm allegation. That's what I mean by hints and rumours.

In a BBC story about this datelined Monday, 10 September 2007, 17:33 GMT 18:33 UK, Prosecutor reviews Madeleine case, there was this paragraph:

During an 11-hour interview, detectives suggested to Mrs McCann that traces of Madeleine's blood had been found in the family's hire car, she said.

In an earlier post this was passed on as "The latest news from Portugal matches the DNA of the blood in the car to that of Madeleine", credited to the BBC News.

Not an intentional distortion - but a Chinese Whisper style firming up of a possibility into a firm fact. A statement that in an interrogation a police made a suggestion becomes a firm and potentially damning allegation about firm scientific evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:30 PM

Isn't that normal?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:30 PM

Giok you have said a lot here about social workers and the courts - These decisions aren't easy and I've said that mistakes are made.

Now how about you show us how easy it is to make a decision in this case upon the evidence available which is what a court will have to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:28 PM

A lot of people are also ganging up on the police etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:25 PM

To say 'We all do it' is obviously a gross over statement, but it is more common than people would care to admit.
I am not defending this couple, and I am not saying they are innocent, none of us can do that, but this whole scenario seems like a lot of people are ganging up on the McCanns, a thing some people have said they hate.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:20 PM

Giok, they have admitted leaving young children alone in an unlocked apartment. It is right that the social services and other professionals are involved since one of those children has not been seen for 4 months as a result of their irresponsible parenting.

Also, the fact that they still seem to defend those actions and imply that we all do it (which we don't) surely means that they could do the same again.

It is right that some action is taken even if they are not directly responsible for the disappearance they do have things to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:20 PM

There is evidence of "neglect" and presumably a "strong suspicion" of harm - I think we have agreed at least that it's possible to make mistakes in such circumstances which are the bread and butter of the Child Protection Courts.

If the courts wait for a child to be killed they can be sure of "guilt" and if they don't they ensure public condemnation.

What's your decision Giok? - someone out there will have to make one.....

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:19 PM

The law is there to protect the innocent but bear in mind we have two innocents here that also needs its protection! My gut reaction thinks they are involved but the evidence does seem to be mounting against them.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:15 PM

What happened to innocent until proved guilty, You cannot work with such inelastic and unbending rules.
Anyway the legal system under which they have been declared 'arguidos' is a different system altogether, and has different definitions.
There is NO evidence that they have harmed a child!!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:13 PM

"if reports are true...who knows..."

And equally "if reports are not true...who knows..."

No doubt in time there will be reports based on actual facts rather than hints and rumours. But that's not the case as yet, and we just don't have a valid basis for making those kind of judgements.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:09 PM

If a parent is even suspected of harming a child - a decision HAS to made upon the evidence available; that's the law and the job of the court and social workers etc Giok!

Now please give us the benefit of your knowledge in this difficult decision

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:05 PM

I would keep my nose out of it, there is no proven case against the parents. That is one of the Social work problems, find people guilty by their lights, and not by the law of this land.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:02 PM

any more reports on whether the kids were sedated? By injection perhaps? Would that be cause to lose a license to practice medicine? I would hope so. Also, reports of one of the party leaving a three year old vomiting child alone while they dined. It gets more and more bizarre if reports are true...who knows...and we have to be outraged by this...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:01 PM

I think Social Services are looking at it from the point that if there are suspicians they need to keep an eye on the twins while the parents are still 'out'.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:57 PM

I don't know how this works, but if parents (any parents, not just these particular ones) go to prison do the children get taken into care or can other family members look after them? The reporting here drammatically says that the twins may be taken into care, in these circumstances, but surely there would be other options. After all, if the parents are completely innocent and the remaining children were taken away from them then that would be a gross injustice, although I do feel that they should, in some way, answer for leaving the children alone in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:50 PM

At the moment a decision HAS to be made about the twins on the basis that the McCanns have been named as "suspects"

I'm interested in hearing Giok's decision as he is so critical of the Social Services, Child Care courts and expert witnesses ability to make the "right" decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:45 PM

They get it wrong both ways, I'd say that too. It's not a perfect world, and it hasn't got perfect people who always do the right thing.

In the current case under discussion, as in every case, the thing to do is find out the facts and examine the evidence and make the best judgement of what to do on the basis of the facts and the evidence. Not speculate on the basis of a mishmash of rumours and guesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:43 PM

True eanjay. We only hear about the failures not the thousands of successes.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM

The trouble is that child abusers/neglecters are a bit like people who have addiction problems. There is a lot of covering up, slyness and lying. There are bound to be some mistakes as there are in all professions - look at the mistakes in the medical profession for example, but look at how many people's lives are also saved and the quality improved.

In a lot of jobs the mistakes that happen maybe don't have such serious consequences.

In some professions the responsibilities are not always matched by the pay - but that is another issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:37 PM

I think you're the only person here saying that Giok! Now what would you do in the current case under discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:34 PM

So are you saying that they get it wrong both ways?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:29 PM

At the risk of repeating myself yet again......

"Bear in mind that the public also "wants it both ways". Social Workers are pilloried if they leave children with neglectful or abusing parents and condemned if they remove them to care (as above)"

It's nice to have a handy scapegoat for societies and communities ills isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:26 PM

After the enquiry into the death of Maria Caldwell we were assured that procedures were changed, and it wouldn't happen again. How many children have died since then?
The usual excuse made for ruining the lives of families wrongly accused of abusing their kids is "Well it's better to err on the side of caution"
I don't know why but names like Timothy Evans leap unbidden to my mind when I hear excuses like that!
giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:13 PM

"Family Courts can and do reject recommendations made by Social Workers. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Reporting restrictions on Family Courts tend to obscure this."

This is true and the rules of "confidentiality" do not allow for the public to know ALL the personal details - rightly so IMHO! or for that matter the many many more cases that succeed in protecting children from harm.

However, where serious errors of judgement have been made you can be sure that an open and lengthy full enquiry will take place and look at how such mistakes may be avoided in the future. Unlike many other professionals social workers are held open to professional discipline!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:58 PM

Social Services screw things up from time to time, that's true enough. What organisation doesn't? What individual doesn't, for that matter? Most of the time they do a pretty good job. I'm sure the same is true of their opposite numbers in Portugal.

I agree with that.

It is also true of the police and the forensic science service.

On the whole all of these organisations do a very good job and I do have to say that I feel the Portuguese police are also trying to do a good job in what seems to be very difficult circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:53 PM

I think I may have mentioned Giok that courts are often swayed by incorrect medical evidence?
Yes it IS a tragedy for the individuals as it was for the child who was diagnosed as haveing impetigo when she had been subjected to long term physical abuse and subsequently killed because a care order could not be obtained!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Sapper on the TRC doing the late shift
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:50 PM

There have been many cases where, acting on "evidence" supplied by Social Workers and other professionals, gross injustices have been perpetrated on innocent families and individuals.
Amongst others the cases of Cleveland, Shieldfield, Pembroke and Orkney come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:48 PM

Family Courts can and do reject recommendations made by Social Workers.   Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Reporting restrictions on Family Courts tend to obscure this.

Social Workers make mistakes. Police officers make mistakes. Teachers make mistakes, Doctors make mistakes. Bus drivers make mistakes. Human beings make mistakes. It goes with the territory.

We can and should try and learn from mistakes, whoever we are. But we're never going to eliminate them entirely.